Just read the Fremer review of the Ypsilon Hyperion...interesting

[morricab]

Tested and rested:

CD used one of my favs -The Living Past CD MM9401--I like it as it was recorded and stamped direct from the live tape feed.

A: 0 --Sound full dynamic, attack,decay and voice soars as I remember excellent

B: +3bB -- Slight constriction of the above with hint of hardness on the vocal-- slight shrinking of soundstage(?)

C: hz +3dB---More of B now "digititus horrendous" evident --vocals strident--no roundness /fullness to the presentation --no cigar

Yes zero setting wins the day

Funny though in the 80's I owned couple of ER A75 Class A Amps with more feedback than a FleaB Gold seller--they sounded pretty good

Go figure !

Apologies to Poster--back on topic folks

BruceD

Consistent with what I have heard doing similar tests.

 

[microstrip]

Yesterday I got the last issue of TheAbsloluteSound (TAS 283) and I was guessing, it includes Jacob Heilbrunn review of the Ypsilon Hyperion, carried with the WAMMs in his room. Excellent writing and filled with comments about precise recordings, as I appreciate. And has expected, he liked them so much he had to ask permission for an hyperbolic conclusion, something rare in his reviews.

Curiously Jacob also reviews something that has recently forced me to change my perspective on ground tweaks - the Nordost QKore grounding system. I have been using a QKore 6 for a few weeks and two days ago I ordered a second unit ...

 

[microstrip]

Considering the recent change of ownership of Stereophile, https://www.stereophile.com/content/avtech-media-ltd-uk-acquires-home-tech-network-ten-publishing-media can we think that the comments of JA are a first indication of a change of orientation in Stereophile guidelines? https://www.stereophile.com/content/what-happening-stereophile

 

[cjfrbw]

Sounds like the Hyperion is tossing it's golden locks in the sunlight and is the new "IT" amp. Better unload those big Darts before they depreciate too much.

 

[awsmone]

It’s obvious JH and MF are either delusional or tone deaf, haven’t they read it’s terrible measurements and JA wouldnt recommend it, because it’s been “tailored”....clearly a counter revolutionary plot for intellectuals to actually enjoy their music, rather than marvel at the spec sheet, leading to increased time spent in leisure, and decreased interest in whats going on around them, allowing greater infiltration of the geopolitical system......OMG!....could they be kicked out of the Audio Reviewer Guild for enjoying something that’s been ‘tailored’...( funny but a tailored suit used to be something to aspire to, in a wonderful case of usage inversion, it’s now used as a word of derision ?)

 

[christoph]

It’s obvious JH and MF are either delusional or tone deaf, haven’t they read it’s terrible measurements and JA wouldnt recommend it, because it’s been “tailored”....clearly a counter revolutionary plot for intellectuals to actually enjoy their music, rather than marvel at the spec sheet, leading to increased time spent in leisure, and decreased interest in whats going on around them, allowing greater infiltration of the geopolitical system......OMG!....could they be kicked out of the Audio Reviewer Guild for enjoying something that’s been ‘tailored’...( funny but a tailored suit used to be something to aspire to, in a wonderful case of usage inversion, it’s now used as a word of derision ?)

 

[KeithR]

Yesterday I got the last issue of TheAbsloluteSound (TAS 283) and I was guessing, it includes Jacob Heilbrunn review of the Ypsilon Hyperion, carried with the WAMMs in his room. Excellent writing and filled with comments about precise recordings, as I appreciate. And has expected, he liked them so much he had to ask permission for an hyperbolic conclusion, something rare in his reviews.

Curiously Jacob also reviews something that has recently forced me to change my perspective on ground tweaks - the Nordost QKore grounding system. I have been using a QKore 6 for a few weeks and two days ago I ordered a second unit ...

What did he compare them with?

I haven't read TAS in 5 years - it became ad copy to these eyes.

 

[microstrip]

What did he compare them with?

I haven't read TAS in 5 years - it became ad copy to these eyes.

Fortunately Jacob Heilbrunn knows that direct comparisons are useless, and is not a "shoot out" type reviewer. But he is permanently implicitly comparing them to previous equipment he has reviewed, although sometimes not writing names. People who are familiar with his reviews will understand them. So the references are his usual hybrid SET, the D'Agostino Momentum's, the ARC GS75i, the cj GAT or the Jadis DA88.

See what JH writes on the "tailoring" of the Hyperion

When listening to standup bass
on jazz albums, for instance, I think the Hyperion provides a
tonally rich sound without sacrificing any alacrity. Since I’m in
the camp that thinks that, in one way or another, all gear has a
coloration, this doesn’t bother me. Quite the contrary. I’d rather
that a component err on the side of musicality, bliss, and all the
other things that can gently propel you into a meditative state
when listening to your system.

One good think of most current high-end magazines is that electronic subscription is really inexpensive - we do not feel guilty of selecting what we feel is the 5% of excellent quality and ignoring all else. I will never probably buy the Hyperions, but I enjoyed the review. Surely YMMV.

 

[awsmone]

Since I’m in
the camp that thinks that, in one way or another, all gear has a
coloration, this doesn’t bother me. Quite the contrary. I’d rather
that a component err on the side of musicality, bliss, and all the
other things that can gently propel you into a meditative state
when listening to your system.[/I]

YMMV.

+1

I feel JA argument about “tailoring” been not to be recommended is fundamentally flawed

Giving a amplifier feedback to make it measure well, and sound not so good, is equaling tailoring, I remember one manufacturer quipping he should have a switch for measurements and another for listening

In fact most high end manufacturers we admire “ tailor”

They design a circuit and play around with different makes of a component to see which sounds better

Vitus’s owner claimed they always chose components that sounded better over measurements

 

[Ron Resnick]

Fortunately Jacob Heilbrunn knows that direct comparisons are useless, and is not a "shoot out" type reviewer. But he is permanently implicitly comparing them to previous equipment he has reviewed, although sometimes not writing names. People who are familiar with his reviews will understand them. So the references are his usual hybrid SET, the D'Agostino Momentum's, the ARC GS75i, the cj GAT or the Jadis DA88.

. . .

Francisco, I am really baffled at this comment.

You believe, and you are reporting that Jacob also believes, that direct comparisons are "useless," but you believe it is good for Jacob to compare "implicitly" the instant component under review with his vague, distant recollections of previous equipment he has reviewed?

I find Jacob to be a lazy reviewer because he does not devote the time, energy and aggravation necessary to make direct comparisons the way Michael Fremer (Stereophile) does and the way Don Saltzman (the absolute sound) does.

In addition, even though Jacob is a professional writer and a foreign policy commentator I find his audio writing to be pretentious. See http://www.theabsolutesound.com/art...honostage-and-400-monoblock-power-amplifiers/

In his review of the D'Agostino Momentum amplifiers Jacob manages to inject these superfluous words:

Refulgent: "No, it isn’t quite as refulgent as tube gear . . ." (emphasis added)

Pulchritude: "Put bluntly, the Momentums have a touch of pulchritude that I found more than welcome." (emphasis added)

Penumbra: ". . . but still with a tenacity that conveys more than the penumbra of a note." (emphasis added)

Sinuosity: "There is a melting sinuosity to the sound that delivers almost more by implication than emphatic statement." (emphasis added)

I agree that Jacob is effective at describing the sound he is hearing. But I find his gratuitous and forced use of pretentious vocabulary to demean his sonic descriptions.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Fortunately Jacob Heilbrunn knows that direct comparisons are useless, and is not a "shoot out" type reviewer. But he is permanently implicitly comparing them to previous equipment he has reviewed, although sometimes not writing names. People who are familiar with his reviews will understand them. So the references are his usual hybrid SET, the D'Agostino Momentum's, the ARC GS75i, the cj GAT or the Jadis DA88.

. . .

Francisco, I am really baffled at this comment.

You believe, and you are reporting that Jacob also believes, that direct comparisons are "useless," but you believe it is good for Jacob to "compare implicitly" the instant component under review with his vague and distant recollections of equipment he has reviewed previously? Why is a comparison based on a distant recollection more probative than a direct and contemporaneous comparison?

I find Jacob to be a lazy reviewer because he does not devote the time, energy and aggravation necessary to make direct comparisons the way Michael Fremer (Stereophile) does and the way Don Saltzman (the absolute sound) does.

* * *

In addition, even though Jacob is a professional writer and a foreign policy commentator I find his audio writing to be pretentious. See http://www.theabsolutesound.com/art...honostage-and-400-monoblock-power-amplifiers/

In his review of the D'Agostino Momentum amplifiers Jacob manages to inject these superfluous words:

Refulgent: "No, it isn’t quite as refulgent as tube gear . . ." (emphasis added)

Pulchritude: "Put bluntly, the Momentums have a touch of pulchritude that I found more than welcome." (emphasis added)

Penumbra: ". . . but still with a tenacity that conveys more than the penumbra of a note." (emphasis added)

Sinuosity: "There is a melting sinuosity to the sound that delivers almost more by implication than emphatic statement." (emphasis added)

I agree that Jacob is effective at describing the sound he is hearing. But I find his gratuitous and forced use of pretentious vocabulary to devalue his otherwise eloquent sonic descriptions.

 

[Joe Whip]

At least he is improving our vocabulary

 

[microstrip]

Francisco, I am really baffled at this comment.

You believe, and you are reporting that Jacob also believes, that direct comparisons are "useless," but you believe it is good for Jacob to "compare implicitly" the instant component under review with his vague and distant recollections of equipment he has reviewed previously?

I find Jacob to be a lazy reviewer because he does not devote the time, energy and aggravation necessary to make direct comparisons the way Michael Fremer (Stereophile) does and the way Don Saltzman (the absolute sound) does.

* * *

In addition, even though Jacob is a professional writer and a foreign policy commentator I find his audio writing to be pretentious. See http://www.theabsolutesound.com/art...honostage-and-400-monoblock-power-amplifiers/

In his review of the D'Agostino Momentum amplifiers Jacob manages to inject these superfluous words:

Refulgent: "No, it isn’t quite as refulgent as tube gear . . ." (emphasis added)

Pulchritude: "Put bluntly, the Momentums have a touch of pulchritude that I found more than welcome." (emphasis added)

Penumbra: ". . . but still with a tenacity that conveys more than the penumbra of a note." (emphasis added)

Sinuosity: "There is a melting sinuosity to the sound that delivers almost more by implication than emphatic statement." (emphasis added)

I agree that Jacob is effective at describing the sound he is hearing. But I find his gratuitous and forced use of pretentious vocabulary to devalue his eloquent sonic descriptions.

Ron,

Please note that I am not able to say anything about Jacon Heilbrun reasons for not comparing the units - I only referred to MY opinions that I will address in this post.

IMHO direct comparisons 99% of the time only show the compatibility of the equipment being tested with systems. As you know I am very critic of such shoot-outs for my personnel use. The be sincere, I think that the listening tests you carried at Mike were very interesting and enjoyable for you, but not very meaningful to your future system at all. You did listen to the amplifiers with a preamplifier that is very different from yours, probably your opinions would be very different if would have used Lamm or Vac preamplfiers - yes, I know Mike disagrees! and your speakers are very different from Mike ones.

May I suggest we should forget about the style and focus on content? Although I am a not native english reader I think I manage to understand pretty well what JH means with his words. Words must be understood inserted in the review that is filled with references to concrete aspects of recordings. Surely any one not appreciating the recordings JH refers will not understand them - as I share most of his musical preferences and recording labels I feel at home with his reviews. Nice to see we agree that he is effective at describing what he is hearing - unfortunately I can not say the same about 90% of the people who write about sound quality. BTW, for me reviews are mostly a source of entertainment and information, not judgment or ranking.

I always need a significantly long time to have an opinion on equipment - and we can see Jacob Heilbrunn is always very careful to identify components that stayed for significant time from those who made occasional stays. His systems are evolutionary, but not changing every month. Just as an example of my views, as I want to listen to the Lamm M1.2 REF in proper conditions according to my bizarre own private rules I am getting a Lamm L2REF next week.

And yes, surely we friendly agree and disagree a lot - this is a subjective hobby on a crazy subject, it can be expected. But IMHO we must focus on the best of it, not in a crusade against those that think differently.

 

[awsmone]

Lol I know reviewers often take a pounding in these blogs, but criticising him for uncommon word usage is possibly harsh

I agree, the usage is unnecessary possibly, but words such as Gestalt and copasetic seems to have crept in to Audio reviews

possibly he is used to writing for a more literate audience ?

I think micro is right worry about the substance of his writing

I agree that MF does go to some trouble to compare and contrast, but I think as micro points out, this runs the risk of showing incompatibilities of equipment swaps, which although valuable in an of itself, does not reflect on the inherent qualities of the equipment he is testing, as a case in point was the use of original dartzeel pre, which didn’t have good balanced behaviour with balanced only amplifiers he tested

 

[Ron Resnick]

I believe I do not engage in carpet-bomb pounding of reviewers. I generally applaud all efforts at a comparative review.

I wrote recently a somewhat over-the-top effusively complimentary piece on Michael Fremer regarding his re-review of Kuzma cartridges. I feel that I give credit where credit is due.

 

[awsmone]

I think Ron if you read what I wrote carefully, I didn’t accuse you of “carpet Bombing” , I said it’s a frequent activity in this blog in general

Your criticism of JH style, relates to his use of word usage outside the norms of conventional reviewing prose

I stand by what I wrote, that might be a bit harsh given the use of other exotic words, by other reviewers, and JH linguistic background, that your well aware of

Also you have not addressed micro and my point about the inherent flaw in comparison equipment writing, examples of which I have given, I too enjoy MF reviews and comparison but as in the Bricasti review and does have issues that need to be examined

I also think it slightly unusual for a Audio reviewer such as yourself to be so harsh in their criticism of the style of another writer at least in public , what are your thoughts on that ?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Oh, I know you didn’t.

But I agree with you that some people on some audio forums are reflexively and relentlessly negative on reviewers. Sadly that’s why so few professional reviewers frequent the forums, and why we are so grateful for the few reviewer members we have here.

I didn’t mean to evade the comparison question. I just felt that we have discussed the “A/B comparison versus long-term listening” topic exhaustively in so many other threads that it did not make sense to me to relitigate it here in this thread.

Forgive me but I do not agree that I was harsh in criticizing Jacob’s style generally. I wrote that I think he writes eloquent descriptions of the sounds he hears. It’s more that I am puzzled why he would sprinkle over his thoughtful review superfluous esoteric words seemingly plucked from a thesaurus.

If someone were to criticize me for not comparing components through long-term listening there is nothing I could do with that criticism except to agree with it. I listen to the types of components I want to listen to and I write what I like to write. I view my pieces much more as informal “visit reports” rather than as formal, Fremer-style reviews.

 

[awsmone]

Thanks Ron

Fair comment

Yes I agree his word usage is esoteric, but given English has poor descriptors of sound, he may be trying to expand it

Some of his usage I too found clunky

But I liked sinuosity and penumbra, but everyone has their likes and dislikes

If I see one more reviewer write Gestalt I think I will scream; same with copasetic ( which happens to be probably a made up word that’s crept into the vernacular, at least in audio writing Lol )

Hope you having a great weekend

 

[Ron Resnick]

I always thought “copasetic” was approximately equivalent to “hunky-dory”!

 

[morricab]

Francisco, I am really baffled at this comment.

You believe, and you are reporting that Jacob also believes, that direct comparisons are "useless," but you believe it is good for Jacob to "compare implicitly" the instant component under review with his vague and distant recollections of equipment he has reviewed previously? Why is a comparison based on a distant recollection more probative than a direct and contemporaneous comparison?

I find Jacob to be a lazy reviewer because he does not devote the time, energy and aggravation necessary to make direct comparisons the way Michael Fremer (Stereophile) does and the way Don Saltzman (the absolute sound) does.

* * *

In addition, even though Jacob is a professional writer and a foreign policy commentator I find his audio writing to be pretentious. See http://www.theabsolutesound.com/art...honostage-and-400-monoblock-power-amplifiers/

In his review of the D'Agostino Momentum amplifiers Jacob manages to inject these superfluous words:

Refulgent: "No, it isn’t quite as refulgent as tube gear . . ." (emphasis added)

Pulchritude: "Put bluntly, the Momentums have a touch of pulchritude that I found more than welcome." (emphasis added)

Penumbra: ". . . but still with a tenacity that conveys more than the penumbra of a note." (emphasis added)

Sinuosity: "There is a melting sinuosity to the sound that delivers almost more by implication than emphatic statement." (emphasis added)

I agree that Jacob is effective at describing the sound he is hearing. But I find his gratuitous and forced use of pretentious vocabulary to devalue his otherwise eloquent sonic descriptions.

I don't think I have actually made it through a single review the JH has written...I found them to be of little value in terms of the meat of his descriptions.